State of the Union Address

[2minkey]

proles.

 

[Mirlyn]

I mis-spoke....It is not a power granted the President under the Constitution.

Which is why I asked why is it a big deal when its all been done before? Explicit or not, its an ability that's been used and hasn't been (or at least, isn't in this case) challenged. Whats the difference?

You really don't see the difference? That's very sad for our nation.

The differnce is, the Seante had already taken up this matter, decided it unworthy & passed on it. Obama, not liking this decision, over-rode the Senate. He bypassed their authority & overstepped his. So, by using powers not granted him by the Constitution, he made the Congressional powers his own, much like a dictator would do.

Executive orders are usually on matters that are temporary & not taken up by a house of Congress.

Yep. I'm sure this has never been done before in all EO history.....ohmigosh! But sure, lets give you the benefit of the doubt.

Lets play on your antichrist brain-eating dictator card....

Don't forget, EO's can be (and at times are) reversed by any following president. Will your next leader revoke it?

I'm not asking you to predict the future here, I'm simply asking if you're going to raise a stink when the next guy/gal gets in and doesn't correct this, even though they have the ability to.

If you don't agree with it, wait this guy out and fix it. Or will you blame it on "the last guy" just like everyone else?



*queue vague comments and p'shops to rally the troops*

 

[Gonz]

If you don't agree with it, wait this guy out and fix it.

Absolutely.

We'll just intern the Japanese until later. Hell, it's no problem, we can make slavery illegal later, so put them niggers in the cotton fields now.

Are you playing devils advovate or do you truly miss the big picture here?

 

[Gonz]

Executive Orders
In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

Emergency. Although, even this is questionable. It is not a power granted the executive branch. Why has it been allowed?

President Andrew Jackson used executive powers to force the law-abiding Cherokee Nation off their ancestral lands. The Cherokee fought the illegal action in the U.S. Supreme Court and won. But Jackson, using the power of the Presidency, continued to order the removal of the Cherokee Nation and defied the Court's ruling. He stated, "Let the Court try to enforce their ruling." The Cherokee lost their land and commenced a series of journeys that would be called The Trail of Tears.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his war-time policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson could not persuade Congress to arm United States vessels plying hostile German waters before the United States entered World War One. When Congress balked, Wilson invoked the policy through a Presidential Executive Order.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066 in December 1941. His order forced 100,000 Japanese residents in the United States to be rounded up and placed in concentration camps. The property of the Japanese was confiscated. Both Lincoln's and Roosevelt's actions were taken during wartime, when the very life of the United States was threatened. Wilson's action was taken on the eve of the United States entering World War One. Whether history judges these actions as just, proper or legal, the decision must be left to time. The dire life struggle associated with these actions provided plausible argumentation favoring their implementation during a time when hysteria ruled an age.

Alright, so it has been done before. With wonderous results too. Nothing to worry about here.

EO 11490 However, here, there might be.

Read this.

Let's continue to grant unwarranted powers to the federal branch of the government. There's nothing to worry about.

 

[Mirlyn]

Absolutely.

We'll just intern the Japanese until later. Hell, it's no problem, we can make slavery illegal later, so put them niggers in the cotton fields now.

Are you playing devils advovate or do you truly miss the big picture here?

I am playing devils advocate. I do not agree with going over the balance of branches, and I haven't defended anyone's orders doing so. I am simply pointing out that actions such as these have happened in the past. It's not a god mentality, its a loophole in the constitution. 'Course, I suppose you could write an EO to fix that gray area...

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

link

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

[Gonz]

Yes it does. However, instead of waiting for 2012 or 2016 (election) or 2025 (Supreme Court proceeding), why not stop it in it's tracks now?

I'm not expressly against Executive Orders. I am against the President (any President) overstepping his authority by expressly over-riding another branch our government.

 

[jimpeel]

Alito was right. BHO was wrong.

How can one man, with such power ans information at his fingertips, be so wrong so often?

SOURCE

Obama Was Wrong and Alito Was Right
Friday, January 29, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama was wrong and Justice Samuel Alito was right.

During his first State of the Union speech on Wednesday, President Barack Obama incorrectly stated that foreign nationals and foreign entities can now contribute unlimited amounts of money to U.S. political campaigns because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling lifting certain campaign finance restrictions.

This prompted an immediate reaction from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who, sitting directly in front of the president, shook his head and apparently mouthed the words “not true” when Obama made his remark.

The high court’s 5-4 ruling in a First Amendment case, Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission (FEC), lifted restrictions for companies, unions, and other organizations to make independent expenditures in political campaigns.

The court decision, however does not allow corporations to contribute directly to a campaign or coordinate expenditures with a campaign. Nor did the ruling lift existing law that blocks foreign contributions to political campaigns.

In his speech, Obama also claimed the court reversed 100 years of law when, in fact, it overturned a 1990 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Also, parts of the McCain-Feingold reform bill from 2002 that restricted independent political advertising in the closing days of an election were struck down.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said.

“I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities,” the president said. “They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Under the FEC regulation 11 CFR 110.20(i): “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.”

Further, federal law, under 2 USC 441-Sec. 441e, also prohibits foreign donations.

In the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”

Responding to a reporter’s question Thursday, White House spokesman Bill Burton did not assert as firmly as the president that foreign corporations can contribute to U.S. political campaigns.

“Well, this issue is something that many have serious concerns about,” Burton said. “It’s something that Justice Ginsburg brought up in her oral arguments. It’s something that Justice Stevens wrote about in his dissent. It’s an issue that the court could have specifically addressed in its findings, but they didn’t.

“And the American people deserve the right to know that foreign corporations cannot interfere with American elections. So this is another one of the issues that the president is looking at in terms of campaign finance reform,” Burton added.

Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith believed the president’s comment was inappropriate.

“The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics – scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in an attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy,” Smith, now chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, said in a statement.

Even a posting on the liberal blog Huffington Post by Adam Winkler, a law professor at University of California-Los Angeles, partly took Alito’s side. Winkler’s piece was entitled, “Alito was rude (but right)” and further said, “Alito was right. The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision.”

 

[Winky]

Because he is evil, that's how.